Introduction

The Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM) is committed ERIM is committed to make Open Science (OS) practices the norm withing its researchers. Open Science increases transparency throughout the research cycle – from hypothesis, methodology, observation, data collection, to analysis and publication – resulting in increased research efficiency and enhanced research quality, visibility, and engagement. Open Science also enables the creation of new research questions and promotes collaborations and community building.

Because of these reasons, ERIM wanted to make a baseline on what and how much OS practices its researchers are already engaging with and which ones do they want to learn more about. This created the need to conduct a survey.

The RSM & ESE Open Science Survey was open to all researchers from the 6th of April to the 6th of May 2021. Questions were adapted from the Swinburne Open Science Survey.

The survey explored how researchers perceive and use “open science” practices. Eight main topics were covered:

  1. Preregistration
  2. Open materials/code
  3. Open data
  4. Pre-publication archiving
  5. Open access
  6. General experience with open science practices
  7. Awareness of available tools
  8. Role of ERIM

This report has all the total responses (combined ESE and RSM)1.

For any comments or questions, please contact Dr. Lizette Guzman-Ramirez (ERIM Research Data Steward) or Dr. Antonio Schettino (ERS Open Science Coordinator).

Respondents

A total of 130 respondents started the survey, but only 113 finished it.

We asked participants their school, department, and research institute affiliation, together with their position.

59.29% of the respondents were from RSM, while 40.71% were affiliated to ESE. For the percentages regarding the affiliation of respondents per department, see Figure 1.

Affilliation per department

Figure 1: Affilliation per department

The majority of respondents (65.49%) were affiliated to ERIM, while 17.7% were affiliated to Tinbergen, 9.73% to neither institute, and 7.08% to both.

The total survey response rate was 20%. Table 1 presents the total response rate per research position and school.

Table 1: Response rate per school and position
position ESE RSM Total
PhD student 14% 18% 16%
Postdoc or researcher 17% 16% 16%
Tenure track 4% 24% 14%
Tenured faculty member 34% 26% 30%
Total 18% 22% 20%

Preregistration

The answers to the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that researchers preregister their studies? reveal that respondents consider preregistration Moderately important or Very important (57.52%), while 16.81% believe that preregistration is Not at all important.

From the question What is your experience with study preregistration?, we see that most respondents (53.98%) are aware of preregistration but have not used it in their own projects. 8.85% of the respondents regularly preregister their studies, while 7.96% had never heard of preregistration before answering this survey. More details can be found in Figure 2.

Preregistration:Importance vs Experience

Figure 2: Preregistration:Importance vs Experience

Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about preregistering their studies, the top 3 are:

  • I need to look at my data before I can decide how to best analyse it (25.66%)
  • It might delay data collection (20.35%)
  • Preregistration prevents exploratory research (19.47%)
Preregistration: concenrns

Figure 3: Preregistration: concenrns

Open materials/code

From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that materials and/or code are openly available?, we can see that 85% of respondents think that using open materials and/or code is Moderately important, Very important, or Extremely important, whereas 2.65% think it is Not at all important (see Figure 4.)

Open materials and/or code: Importance

Figure 4: Open materials and/or code: Importance

The answers to the question What is your experience with using open materials and/or code? reveal that (40.71%) of respondents are aware of open materials but do not use them, and that (30.97%) have some experience using open materials and/or code. A considerable amount of researchers (21.24%) regularly use open materials and/or code, while only a small fraction of respondents (7.08%) had not heard of open materials and/or code before answering this survey.

From the question What is your experience with sharing open materials and/or code? we can see that 33.63% of respondents are aware of sharing materials and/or code, 31.86% have some experience, and 28.32% regularly share open materials and/or code.

Based on these results, we observe that researchers at ESE and RSM share their materials and/or code more than what they re-use. More details can be found in Figure 5.

Open materials and/or code: using vs sharing

Figure 5: Open materials and/or code: using vs sharing

Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about making their materials and/or code openly available, the top 3 are:

  • Others might find it difficult to understand my materials and/or code (19.47%)
  • I might lose control over how my materials and/or code are being used (15.04%)
  • Other researchers might criticise my materials and/or code (8.85%)

Notably, however, the majority of respondents (27.43%) did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 6).

Open materials and/or code: concerns

Figure 6: Open materials and/or code: concerns

Open data

From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that data from published research are openly available?, 82% of respondents think that using open materials and/or code is Moderately important, Very important, or Extremely important, whereas 2.65% think it is Not at all important (see Figure 7).

INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Figure 7: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

The answers to the question What is your experience with using open data? reveal that 74% of respondents are aware of (46.02%) and have some experience (28.32%) using open data. 21.24% of researchers regularly use open data, while only a small fraction of respondents (2.65%) had not heard of open data before answering this survey.

From the question What is your experience with sharing open data? we can see that 49.56% of respondents are aware of sharing data, 27.43% have some experience, and 17.7% regularly share open data.

Based on these results, it seems that researchers at ESE and RSM have more experience using publicly available data rather than sharing their own data. More details can be found in Figure 8.

INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Figure 8: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about making their data openly available, the top 3 are:

  • There could be issues related to intellectual property (30.09%)
  • There could be issues related to privacy (14.16%)
  • There could be issues related to ethics (11.5%)

Notably, however, many respondents (17.7%) did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 9).

INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Figure 9: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Pre-publication archiving

The answers to the question In your opinion, how important is pre-publication archiving for your field? reveal that respondents consider pre-publication archiving Moderately important or Very important (45.13%), while 15.93% believe that pre-publication archiving is Not at all important.

From the question What is your experience with pre-publication archiving?, we see that most respondents (33.63%) are aware of pre-publication archiving but have not used it in their own projects. 22.12% of respondents have extensive experience with preprint archiving, while 18.58% had never heard of pre-publication archiving before answering this survey. More details can be found in Figure 10.

INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Figure 10: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about uploading a manuscript to a pre-publication archive before submitting it for peer review, the top 3 are:

  • Some journals might not publish findings that are uploaded to a pre-publication archive (38.05%)
  • Other people might copy my research and publish it before I do (14.16%)
  • Non-peer-reviewed findings might add noise to the literature (10.62%)

Notably, however, many respondents (26.55%) did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 11).

INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Figure 11: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Open access

When asked Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access?, 17.7% of respondents declared to have published all their papers open access, whereas 17.7% have none of their publications open access (see details in Table 2).

Table 2: Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access?
response percentage
I don’t know/prefer not to answer 20.35%
Some 19.47%
All 17.7%
None 17.7%
Most 15.93%
Half 8.85%

When asked how they paid article processing charges (APCs) for open access publications, 36.28% of respondents declared that APCs were covered by the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers. More details can be found in Table 3.

Table 3: Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees?
response percentage
It was paid under the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers 36.28%
I don’t know/prefer not to answer 31.86%
My open access publications did not involve fees 12.39%
It was paid using the Erasmus Open Access Fund 6.19%
Other 4.42%
I submit my research to journals that do not provide open access options 3.54%
I collaborated with others and other co-author paid the fees with their research funding 2.65%
I paid the fees from my own research fund 1.77%
I received a fee waiver from the journal 0.88%

General experiences with open science practices

When asked What is your experience with open science practices?, 50.44% of respondents have some experience with open science practices, 11.5% have extensive experience, and 35.4% are aware but have not used any open science practices in their research (see Figure 12).

INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Figure 12: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

When asked Are you sharing your knowledge about open science practices with others?, 56.64% of respondents share their knowledge informally with colleagues, 2.65% give seminars and/or talks, and 0.88% discuss open science with students or fellow research students. The remaining respondents use other means of sharing knowledge (2.65%), do not share their knowledge (30.09%), or do not know/prefer not to answer (7.08%).

During March 2021 ERIM launched an ORCID campaign. When asked about participation and creation of an ORCID record, 64.6% of respondents declared not to have participated since they already had it, while 23.01% did participate and get an ORCID ID.

Among the perceived barriers to the uptake of open science practices, the top 3 are:

  • Lack of funding for open access publishing (32.74%)
  • Lack of recognition in my field about the value of open science practices (13.27%)
  • Lack of credit in my institution for engaging in open science (11.5%)

For details, see Figure 13.

INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Figure 13: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Awareness of available tools

We asked researchers to indicate their awareness of some popular open science resources. Notably, services hosted or approved by EUR are frequently in use, for example Dropbox for Business (48.65%), SurfDrive (42.34%), and RePub (33.64%). An overview of all responses can be found in Figure 14.

INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Figure 14: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE

Role of ERIM

Finally, researchers were asked Do you expect that ERIM supports you in learning open science practices?. 67.26% of respondents said Yes whereas 15.93% said No.

When specifically asked Which of the following open science practices would you like ERIM to provide information or support for?, the top 3 are:

  • Preregistration (50%)
  • Open Materials and/or Code (18.42%)
  • Open access publishing (14.47%)

For an overview, see Table 4.

Table 4: Which of the following open science practices would you like ERIM to provide information or support for?
response percentage
Preregistration 50%
Open Materials and/or Code 18.42%
Open access publishing 14.47%
I don’t know/prefer not to answer 6.58%
Pre-publication archiving 5.26%
Other 2.63%
Open Data 2.63%

ERIM Open Science Strategy

ERIM is committed to Open Science. The main reason why we conducted this survey is that we needed to know where the gaps are.

In order to provide enough support to our researchers ERIM is planning several interventions. 1) A 3 year campaign (2021 - 2024) on different aspects of Open Science. -In March 2021, ERIM conducted the ORCiD Madness Month,

  1. The percentages presented in the survey responses reflect the survey respondents, not the total number of researchers at each school.↩︎